Friday, 26 December 2014

Gay Relationships and Gay Marriages

Nowadays many so called ' modern ' people are demanding legalizing gay relationships and gay marriages in India. Some people have asked for my opinion about the issue, so I am expressing it.

In his play ' Man and Superman ', the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw expresses his idea of what he calls as ' The Life Force '.

According to Bernard Shaw, there is a powerful law of nature among all living creatures, that while the individuals will one day die, the species must continue. Thus, the human species must continue, while the individual human beings will die.

This law of nature creates The Life Force, which can be stated as the driving force which ensures that life continues on earth. This Life Force creates a powerful urge in humans to reproduce, and the main role in this is that of the woman. It is she who has to conceive the child, keep the child in her womb for nine months, give birth to the child, then rear the child for several years.

To fulfill this role of nature, a woman has to get hold of a man, not merely to make her pregnant, but also to look after her and provide for her financially while she is performing this role.

Hence, according to Shaw, it is not men who pursue women, but women who pursue men. It is the Life Force which drives women to pursue and catch a mate, who will then look after her while she is performing nature's serious and vital function of continuing the species. Women who remain single are prone to have psychological problems.

In Man and Superman, Ann Whitefield pursues an unwilling Jack Turner.

What Shaw expressed may have been known to others, but conventional morality had dictated that it is men who pursued women, instead of the other way around. So no one before Shaw had dared to challenge the conventional norm so openly.

In the well known Hollywood film ' Fatal Attraction ', it is a woman ( played by Glenn Close ) who tries to get hold of a married man.

Nowadays there is a lot of talk of gay relationships and gay marriages. To my mind it is all humbug.and nonsense. Will a gay relationship or gay marriage serve nature's requirement of continuing the species ? No, it is only sex between a man and a woman which will give birth to a child, not sex between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman.

Agree with your views J.Katju! Homosexuals, instead of following the west in every damn thing, for once return to our ancient yogic science and you just might 'get cured'. Yes i said cured. no offence, keep an open mind that this too could be an aberration from normal like bp, diabetes ,etc which has been scientificallly proven to be cured by the practice of yog. But at the same time, go ahead get married, absolutely no harm doing that, and why shouldnt they be allowed ? Its no ones business what they do inside closed doors!

If homosexuality is unnatural how com several other species such as plants and animals also display homosexuality and bisexuality? Homosexuality is as natural as left-hand writing. Homosexuality in a way questions and defeats masculine thinking and that is the very reason why it is condemned in patriachal societies. Also, there is nothing western about it. All our temples and vedas have lots of writings on homosexuality, bisexuality and also beastuality. In fact, in kamasutra, there are positions defined for male-male and female-female sex. I think someone rightly pointed out. We are NOBODY to pass our informed/uninformed OPINION on others lives.

The question of what leads to same-sex orientation in a person is still up for debate. Most scientists agree that both NATURE and NURTURE – a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences – factor into the cause of same-sexual orientation.

For example, one factor is birth order. Research suggests that for every older brother a boy has, the odds of same-sex orientation in him goes up by 33% [1]. This effect is most acutely seen in closely-spaced children, hence the theory that it could be caused by the prenatal environment a baby is subjected to in a mother's womb. We cite this and other research to emphasize that many/most gay people have no real choice with regards to their sexual orientation. They just happen to be gay.

Either way, we know that LGBT live amongst us in significant numbers. A Gallup USA poll in 2012 based on more than 120,000 interviews revealed that about 3.4% of Americans self-identify as LGBT [2]. Assuming this holds for India, we may have 43 million Indians who are LGBT. Even if the actual numbers are a fraction thereof, the question of gay relationships and marriage merits serious consideration for its impact on the social fabric.

In recent years, there's been a remarkable progression in how the world has come to understand gay rights. From decriminalization to assimilation to open acceptance for gay relationships and marriage, it's been a fairly short journey. Conservatives are fair to suggest that the radical redefinition of ages-old institutions like marriage, adoption, family, etc. and the relevant laws, require a more judicious approach. This is a healthy debate to have.

However, there's an important point to be made here. What turned the tide for this issue in American political debate, and elsewhere, is the recognition that the case for gay marriage is not a liberal but a CONSERVATIVE one.

You see, if we are to posit that gay people are worthy of life and dignity, not criminalization or persecution, then it begs the question: 'WHAT KIND OF LIFE SHOULD GAY PEOPLE LEAD?'

A society without gay marriage condemns gay people to live a life in the shadows, having a series of short-term relationships, without social/legal scrutiny. This is precisely what we call a liberal lifestyle, one which does not contribute to responsible behaviour or community peace. This is a problem that vexes gay people everywhere; it leads to unstable relationships, insecurity, loneliness and depression through old age. This further contributes to the notion that gay people are inherently disturbed.

We've always known marriage and family to be building blocks of a civilized society. As an institution, marriage goes beyond the procreative need. It serves the purpose of giving social/legal sanction to a union, and is a binding contract that incentivizes couples to commit lifelong to each other, settle down, share joint assets and experiences, and invest in family and community. These are what make for a stable union and a peaceful community.

This is why gay people need marriage, so that they can engage in companionship and intimacy in a committed relationship that will serve as a starting point for the rest of their life. It is a CONSERVATIVE lifestyle that they seek, a choice that we've always seen as a sign of responsibility.

Gay marriage is not meant to replace straight marriage, i.e. straight people will always be engaged in the propagation of the species. In a world of 7+ billion people, all aspiring to a consumerist lifestyle, we couldn't stop reproducing even if we tried. That is the least of our worries.

Gay marriage is meant to account for gay people who are not just having sex, but also are engaging in love, commitment, sobriety, leadership and the whole spectrum of human experiences. To assimilate them into mainstream society, and help them realize their full potential, is a worthy cause like any other.

This is an honest debate that will animate our country for many years to come. Hope you will do a rethink along these lines.

No sane citizen would do what is harmful to one's fellow beings. Having said that, it is necessary that we do not confuse issues. People commit crimes, some of them are gays, some of them are straights. Also, there are differences of opinion within the non-heterosexual community, but that is the whole point of tolerating diversity. We must ask ourselves, what is the harm? Is it really harm? Or is the denial harm? I think we all are past the notion of having babies as the sole aim in one's life. There is no point in having children, whom we cannot nourish in a healthy environment where there is love and not hatred. If everyone lives for his/her children, who lives for himself/herself? Then, there is no point in living. It is live and let live. A family is based on mutual love, and a family that is forced onto someone is the denial of love. Single parents, living in relationships, are just a handful of so many experiments and they have been successful. The need is a will to change. A hope for the better. This is one interpretation of the Life force. It needs deep study to get closer to his philosophy. At the same time, Shaw does not rule us. In fact, ironically, he is a western playwright. It is strange that people still talk about east and the west. If such is our thought, then, we should abandon all science, philosophy and knowledge of statecraft that comes from the west. What happens to the argument of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam? We no longer believe in a separation of humanity from humanity. I wish Mr.Katju had not taken up an issue in which he has limited knowledge, I mean Shavian concept of Life Force. Dilettantism does more harm to academia and to the people at large.

Also, Mr.Vadakayil has some interesting points about Hinduism. I think the same goes for other faiths. We should never distort information to suit our needs. If a religion says that homosexuality is a sin, then we should accept it, provided there is not already a mistranslation of the fact. But we all know that public dealings are secular and I have no ground to include religion in arguing over a law that equally applies to all. The language of our argument should be based on humane principles, not religion.